Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Sub-races for Humans?

So with the rumours I'm hearing about the ability stat changes for races (+2,+1 for everybody, with some differences for sub races) I'm wondering if it isn't time for humans to have sub-races. Of course that potentially raises the racism issue, but I think I have a way around that:

- Urban dweller; bonus to INT or CHA (based on increased educational opportunities and higher rate of social interactions).
- Rural dweller; bonus to STR (all that farming makes you stronger)
- Wilderness dweller; bonus to CON (extreme environments develop your endurance).
- Variant human; a free feat

What do you think?

Should humans have sub-races? single choice
	YES
	NO
Votes accepted starting: 31/07/23 03:34 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

Just give me the variant human and I'm happy.

If we'd go down the subrace route, I'd prefer if we had actual subraces like Chondathan, Iluskan, etc.
After all it's Faerûn, a fictional fantasy setting with no real connection to earth and hence racism shouldn't be an issue. People bringing their RL issues into fantasy is what destroys any good fantasy.

I would welcome Variant aswell ...
But i see no point in homebrewing even more.

Yes, clearly we don't need subraces to enable us to create humans that look however we wish, so the only reason for subraces that I can see is that we might want humans that have different racial abilities. And given humans are set up to be versatile by definition, I don't see any call for that, though admittedly I'm not a 5e expert. But from what I do know, either the PHB +1 to all abilities human, or the variant human with the adjustable abilities plus a feat of choice have all the bases covered. (I'm not going to take a call on Larian's homebrewed version until we get some very definite info on it!)

So, on the assumption that variant human isn't really a subrace, this gets a no from me.

Well, yes. Mechanically speaking, it's not required in the slightest and the Variant HUman will be the first thing modders will drop on the Nexus.

But, let's say I want to try and make a Thayan, there's no reactivity to it, so there's no real flavour to the Human side of things.

I'd have thought something like that would be better handled by specifying a home location tag for your character, rather than by having a subrace? Of course, we don't know if the game is going to be able to handle any other home locations for most races other than Baldur's Gate, which at least at the beginning of EA seemed to be assumed to be the home of any non-Underdark races, but it would be great if we did have some other options. I just don't think introducing subraces for the different countries would be the best way to accomplish it.

Sure, but every Tav gets a Balduran tag as is whilst other races have subrace tags.

Yes, the tag or the background system would have been perfect for it (and it was even suggested several times during EA).

But failing that, I see little harm in having subraces (cultures would be more appropriate actually) for humans. After all, a Rashemi would have very different skills/proficiencies and maybe even stats than a Chondathan, Iluskan or Shou.
And a cultural or homeland tag would have added much needed variety to the humans in general.

Not every Tav, Drow, Duergar, Deep Gnomes, Half-Drow and Githyanki don't have the Balduran tag, I personally hope Half-Orcs don't have the Balduran tag, however I know it might happen anyways, personally I can't imagine Human Raised Half-Orcs, since all my Half-Orcs are very in tune with the Orc tribal way of life like how Gruumsh One-Eye intended.

Some backgrounds, like Outlander, aren't Baldurian either.

Ah, fair enough; and good to know. Still, like that Baldruan tag - as a Human I'd like to choose where I'm from. But, they're never going to write up the ractivity for it, so it's largely pointless at this stage.

A thousand times no. I've been saying for a long time that it's possible to have RPG species in way that is not racist but "sub races" of humans is a bit too closes to the racist fantasy for me.

What you would need to do to do it in way that is not racist would be implement a system like the one the Aetalis setting has that divides race and culture.

In Aetalis a human raised in a dwarven community would have the dwarven armor proficiencies etc.

Just keep the conversation tags related to region but let humans just be humans.

This doesn't mean we can't have the PHB variant human but - Mystra save me - no, no, no to human sub races.

That... sounds just way too weird in my ears. What's wrong with fantasy subraces of human? How is that racist? Especially when things like appearance and so forth are separate ? Are Bretons / Nords and Redguards in The Elder Scrolls racist too? Am I racist for playing Ninja Gaiden? I think you're overreaching here.

The term "races" in D&D is actually referring to something closer to species (and/or aliens). So when you ask for "subraces for humans," you're actually asking for humans to be split into different species. To continue an example, it'd be saying something like: "Nords are smarter than Bretons." This is a big no no, especially when you'd have to associate certain human groups (with their specific combination of skin color and other physical features) with these bonuses.

The differences in humans in D&D should entirely come from Backgrounds and/or the Variant Human free feat that is, importantly, not tied to any specific human society/culture/group.
Urban Dweller? Take the Criminal, Merchant, Noble, or Urchin Background.
Wilderness Dweller? Take the Far Traveler, Hermit, or Outlander Background.

What? No.

A Moon Elf is an elf.
A Wood elf is an elf.
They can make little Mood Elfs. They're not separate species and subrace does not imply that.

Then. It's only a no-no because the Bretons are in fact, smarter than the Nords. But Nords are stronger and get Frost Resist. And the Redguards have a different skin color. They're arguahly the best fighters of all.

And yeah, they look a little different, but that's not even a thing in BG3 because appearance is separate from those atrributes. You can make you Duergar look like a Shield Dwarf.

They would still be entirely fictional, so the racism argument doesn't hold or do you think "Adventures in Middle-Earth" (a 5E based game) is racist just because it features different human groups with a slightly different ASI distribution?
Sorry, but I really don't see the issue as it's all fictional. Now, if a game would be based on earth ... then I'd understand the argument, but it's not.

People really need to stop dragging real world problems/world views into fantasy.

Technically Bretons are better than other humans simply because they're part elf, specifically Altmer.

I think that's what we are trying to do here. I don't think there's a problems with talking about subraces of elves but because racists believe that humans are divided into subraces it's a problem to have a template that adheres so closely to that model. I think @mrfuji nailed this.

Here's a good example where this can go:

https://www.thegamer.com/tsr-dave-johnson-star-frontiers-playtest-racist/

"Racism" is a word with layers of meaning -- my inner prescriptivist wishes people hadn't started using "racist" when they mean discriminatory but they did. That the original theory of race is: " humans are divided into sub species just like dogs are divided into breeds and these breeds have different mental capacities"

Again if you are talking about entirely fictional species that live to 1000 years old I don't see that as problematic. If you are talking about humans you run right into the trap that NuTSR did.

Firstly, my inner prescriptivist salutes yours. Things are becoming more clear now. I too, mistook it for 'discriminatory', out of habit, really.

So, by my understanding of this, the problem isn't so much the inclusion of say, origin tags, but the term subrace. And, by that token - you wouldn't have an issue if that was labeled, say; 'origin'?

I ask, because, in essence - that's the thing we're more or less shooting at here.
And that's actually largely what it is now for the other races, considering that how a character looks is entirely separated from the subrace already.

Now, don;t get me wrong here, certainly some of these origins have varying appearances, but that's no different now. People from exotic locales will have exotic appearances. Again, though, appearance such as skin tone and sex are entirely separated in BG3.

The prescriptivist in me bows . . . namaste'

I wouldn't mind regional feats or origin tags but I would keep in mind so of the issues as you assigned the bonuses. I wouldn't want see Chultans be stronger for example.

Even more interesting would regional feats - have Thayans do additional damage vs vampires, give Rashemeni characters advantage on diplomacy checks with spirits . . . (and put in places where you need to negotiate with ghosts)